When was the A.O.D fulfilled?

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is not my first rodeo. Either way I answer you will try to condemn. What I am, or what you are does not make the words of God any less true.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not;

Let Gods words be True, and every man a liar.

Yes, every man a liar including you. One of your lies is claiming to be sinless since you were saved. Why do you take those verses so literally? We are saved by grace through faith and not by works, right (Eph 2:8-10)? Why do you think God's grace is no longer needed after being saved? Why do you think He suddenly requires us to be perfect after being saved? How do you live up to the pressure of thinking that you have to be sinless or else you will be condemned? You are so deceived. I feel sorry for you.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

This is John talking to his fellow believers and including himself in what he was saying there. While we should strive for holiness and righteousness, God knows we will fall short and is gracious, faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we confess them. Not only are we saved by grace through faith and not by works, but we maintain our salvation by grace through faith and not by works as well. But, you believe that one is only initially saved by grace through faith and then after that we have to maintain our salvation by our own works and righteousness. Scripture never teaches this.

Read Romans 7:14-25. Do you imagine yourself to be better than Paul? Paul struggled with sin after being saved because he pointed out how our flesh (sin nature) is always at war with our mind or spirit. He didn't want to sin, but sometimes the flesh wins the battle. So ,1 John 5:18 is talking about the fact that those who are born again do not sin willfully and is not saying those who are born again never sin at all.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Yes, every man a liar including you. One of your lies is claiming to be sinless since you were saved. Why do you take those verses so literally? We are saved by grace through faith and not by works, right (Eph 2:8-10)? Why do you think God's grace is no longer needed after being saved? Why do you think He suddenly requires us to be perfect after being saved? How do you live up to the pressure of thinking that you have to be sinless or else you will be condemned? You are so deceived. I feel sorry for you.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

This is John talking to his fellow believers and including himself in what he was saying there. While we should strive for holiness and righteousness, God knows we will fall short and is gracious, faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we confess them. Not only are we saved by grace through faith and not by works, but we maintain our salvation by grace through faith and not by works as well. But, you believe that one is only initially saved by grace through faith and then after that we have to maintain our salvation by our own works and righteousness. Scripture never teaches this.

Read Romans 7:14-25. Do you imagine yourself to be better than Paul? Paul struggled with sin after being saved because he pointed out how our flesh (sin nature) is always at war with our mind or spirit. He didn't want to sin, but sometimes the flesh wins the battle. So ,1 John 5:18 is talking about the fact that those who are born again do not sin willfully and is not saying those who are born again never sin at all.

See there you try to condemn any way. You don’t know me, nor what it means to be made free from sin and to be made Righteousness. If a man is truly made free from sin he is free indeed! And if a man is truly made righteous by His maker he shall also DO righteousness. A good tree CANNOT bear evil fruit!

Seems there are more errors in your doctrine than just your Amil belief.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

See there you try to condemn any way.

Condemn? Do you even know what that word means? It means to declare that someone is not saved and is going to hell. When did I say that about you? I did not. I'm saying you are mistaken in thinking that you are sinless.

You don’t know me, nor what it means to be made free from sin and to be made Righteousness.

DO NOT tell me I don't know what that means. I most certainly do. And it doesn't require being sinless to know that. You have decided that somehow salvation after initially being saved is based on works, but scripture never teaches this. Salvation from beginning to end is by grace through faith and not of works (not of your own righteousness).

If a man is truly made free from sin he is free indeed!

Yes, and if he slips up in the battle of the flesh and the mind God is faithful and just to forgive him for that. You don't seem to understand that concept. Have you never read Romans 7:14-25? Was Paul just imagining the war going on inside him between his flesh and mind? Was he lying when he said he sometimes did what he didn't really want to do because of his flesh (sin nature)? Why do you think you're more holy than Paul?

And if a man is truly made righteous by His maker he shall also DO righteousness. A good tree CANNOT bear evil fruit!

That does not mean a Christian cannot ever sin. That is talking about sinning willfully in rebellion against God. Again, have you never read Romans 7:14-25? There is a difference between willful and unwillful sin.

You should not equate this:

Romans 7:19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.

With this:

Hebrews 11:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

God does not hold it against us if we have moments of weakness where we don't do what we want to do and give in to the flesh that is warring against us. That's why John said to believers while including himself: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). You don't seem to have any understanding of God's grace. Sin even once and you're condemned? I can't imagine the pressure you must be feeling to be perfect. I feel sorry for you.

Seems there are more errors in your doctrine than just your Amil belief.

Amil is true as is what I'm telling you about your false belief in salvation by sinless perfection.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

That does not mean a Christian cannot ever sin.

So you know better than Jesus ?
Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth goodfruit.

have you never read Romans 7:14-25? There is a difference You should not equate this:

Sure, hundreds of times. But clearly you do not understand WHY Paul was speaking “after the manner of the sinful man”. Because he was trying to relate to those who were yet still struggling with sin. They were double minded in their ways being unstable.

Have you never read Romans 7:14-25?

I wrote a study on the Romans 7 confusion …

I have come across a grave error in my internet travels, and that error is in thinking that the law of God is a curse, and is sin.


The law of God is also the words of God; and so I would ask, is God's words also sin and death? Of course not! And for one to equate God's words of Life as sin and death is nothing short of blasphemy in my opinion.

It would be the same as equating the works of the Holy Spirit to the works of the Devil. Many believe the Law of God is "the law of sin and death" that Paul spoke of in his letters. But Paul makes clear in Romans 7:7 that the law of God is not sin.

So what is the law of sin and death? I compare the law of sin and death to be much like the law of gravity; we are all firstborn “under it”naturally by reason of Adams original sin.

Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

As it is also written in Romans 5:19 “For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,” So as it is also written, “by nature”we were the children of wrath Ephesians 2:3; and as by the judgement of one for sin was unto condemnationRomans 5:16 as the wages of sin is death= being “under the law of sin and death.”

It is an absolute principle “in nature,”much like the law of gravity.

We know this condemnation of sin was already in the world before the Law of Moses because sin and death already reigned in the world.

Romans 5:13 Notice we are told death reigned Romans 5:14“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

That is an important clue in understanding what it means to be “under the law of sin and death.”

When you are under the law of sin you are a “servant of sin,” like sin being the Devils desire “ruling over”you as it is written in Romans 5:21 “That as sin hath reigned unto death…”

People try to use Romans 7 as an excuse for ongoing sin, even saying Paul was still struggling with sin. But one needs to keep in mind what Paul said to his audience in Romans 6:19

19 I speak after “the manner of men”because of the infirmity of your flesh:”

Paul was trying to relate to a “carnal”audience who was still “struggling with sin” because they were still in “the flesh"(as is the “mannerism”of mankind) like a natural brute beast.

What Paul was showing in Romans 7 was the struggle and “enmity between” the law of the flesh and the law of the Spirit, as these 2 spirits and 2 natures are contrary to one another.


Notice in Romans 7 we are shown 2 laws, one is “the law of sin and death,” and the other is the law of God. We already saw in Romans 7:7 that the law of God is not sin, now notice Paul confirms in verse 13 the law of God is not death either.

Romans 7:12-25 "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then “a law,”that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see “another law”in my members, warringagainst the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to “the law of sin”which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with “the flesh” the law of sin.

In the above we see the 2 laws at work (flesh vs. Spirit) warring against one another. But are we to remain in this state of captivity and bondage being under the law of sin and death?

Scripture gives us the answer to this as well in Romans 8:1-4 “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus “hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak “through the flesh,”God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

What we see in the above is walking after the fleshis serving sin and =being “under the law of sin and death.”

Thus when we are born again of the Spirit we are no longer walking in the lusts of the flesh.

Notice what Paul says in Romans 8:9 “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”


So it is the Spirit of Christ (the law of the Spirit of Life) that makes us free from the first nature and law that desires to walk in the flesh and serve sin.

Now some might say this does not mean we are set free from sin and death, just that we are set free from the law of God.


But that is not what is being said above by Paul. To what benefit would it serve to be only set free from a holy law, and not be made free from sin and death?

All that would amount to is a bunch of lawless sinners. Besides that, the Gentiles were never even under the Law of Moses to begin with, so how can you be set free from a law that you were never even under? Makes no sense.

But the law that both Jews and Gentiles are firstborn “under,”is the “law of sin and death.”

Romans 3:9 “What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are “all under sin;”

So hopefully you will see in this that it is sin you truly need to be made free from, because a servant of sin abides not in the house forever.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is not my first rodeo. Either way I answer you will try to condemn. What I am, or what you are does not make the words of God any less true.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not;

Let Gods words be True, and every man a liar.

So we all now know you believe you never sin anymore.

I am not looking to condemn but rescue you from that demonic lie.

You still sin but now have to play all sorts of word games to say it is not sin. You do not even know how far the blood of Jesus went to cleanse you.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

I am not looking to condemn but rescue you from that demonic lie.

You still sin but now have to play all sorts of word games to say it is not sin. You do not even know how far the blood of Jesus went to cleanse you.

The words of God are not a demonic lie.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not;

 

[Phoneman777]

Wrong. Why must you be so ignorant? I believe it is a story about real people in real places, but the rich man's torment is described figuratively. As I have already told you many times. You must have ADD. Jesus likely described that figuratively because it wasn't even possible for Him to explain how things are in hell literally where people can understand. That's why you never see literal descriptions of heaven or hell in scripture. That doesn't mean they are not real places, though. But, they are not earthly places, so it's not something we can currently comprehend. But, there's no reason to doubt the existence of a real place called hell and no reason to think that people don't experience torment in the sense of feeling regret there like the rich man expressed.

Me: "Dead people don't have bodies".
You: "It's symbolic".
Me: "The wicked won't see the righteous in the kingdom until Jesus tells them to depart."
You: "It's symbolic."
Me: "The dead can't go back and interact with the living".
You: "It's symbolic."
Me: "Jesus chose 'hades' which means 'grave' instead of 'gehenna' which means fiery, blazing hell".
You: "It's symbolic."

Me: "They you agree it's a symbolic parable that must be interpreted."
You: "NO, PHONEMAN, YOU FOOL, IT'S A LITERAL STORY TOLD FIGURATIVELY!"

Me: "Uh.....got it."

LOL!!!!!!!! Is the Bible all literal? No, right? So, do we not all pick and choose which parts are literal and which are symbolic?

Rich Man is symbolic.
The fine fare is symbolic.
The gate is symbolic.
Lazarus is symbolic (using "Lazarus" doesn't make the story literal - it makes it prophetic. SEE VERSE 31).
Lazarus' sores are symbolic.
The dogs are symbolic.
Abraham is symbolic.
The Rich Man's brothers are symbolic.

Got it? Make one single thing literal and massive contradictions arise from doing so.

Of course! Including you. So, this is just an extremely lame argument you're trying to make here. What do you think, that Jesus just made up a name for a fictional character and called him "Lazarus"?

Perhaps you're unaware Jesus said He tells us things beforehand so "you will believe".

By saying "they will not be persuaded though one rose from the dead" He was speaking prophetically of the Jews who - upon hearing of Lazarus' resurrection - not only refused to repent but sought to murder him.

LOL. That's not how parables work. And why don't you tell me how Jesus specifying how many brothers the rich man had was of any importance if it's a parable? Why include a detail like that if the rich man wasn't a real person?

Since the Rich Man is symbolic of the Jews (as Lazarus is symbolic of the Gentiles) it could be said that the Rich Man's 5 brother are representative of:

• Jews like himself
• Pharisees
• Sadducees
• Essenes
• Fourth Philosophy

Namely - the "children of Abraham" which refused to believe "though one rose from the dead".

Your understanding of Luke 16:19-31 is nothing more than a complete joke and is influenced by extreme doctrinal bias. That is obvious.

My interpretation is the only one that doesn't introduce colossal contradictions - that's how we SDAs roll.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Fallon's Commentary, for one, says the "Man of Sin"

Okay. What's your point?

Answer the question, please: Did you "sit down in heavenly places" when you decided to profess salvation in Christ? No? Could it be God speaks of things that will be as though they are?

We figuratively sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus now. That is not talking about the future. What he said there relates to current salvation.

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

All of this is talking about a current reality. Notice it says "by grace ye are saved". We are saved by grace now, right? Likewise, we have been quickened together with Christ (made spiritually alive with Christ) and figuratively been raised "up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus".

Is it possible that "God of the living" also refers to what will be, and not necessarily what is now?

You are mistaken by thinking Ephesians 2:4-6 is talking about things that will be when it actually talks about things that are now in both a literal (made spiritually alive after being dead in sins, by grace you are saved) and figurative way (raised up together to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus).

I only said that because you believe in many extra-Biblical catholic teachings.

Don't be stupid. I believe in Biblical teachings. If a Catholic happens to agree, I couldn't care less. Truth is truth. Stop this dumb nonsense already.

Christians believe in the Bible, not extra-Biblical nonsense.

Exactly. Which is why I believe what the Bible teaches, but you are mistaken about some of what the Bible teaches. You have chosen to align yourself with a false church denomination. You put man (and woman - Ellen G. White) on a pedestal which is not wise.

Me: "Dead people don't have bodies".
You: "It's symbolic".

I do not say that dead people have bodies, either. Talk to me instead of your straw man.

Me: "The wicked won't see the righteous in the kingdom until Jesus tells them to depart."
You: "It's symbolic."

Do you have something against symbolism? The book of Revelation has lots of it. You must really hate that book.

Me: "The dead can't go back and interact with the living".
You: "It's symbolic."

I don't say that the dead can go back and interact with the living, you goofy silly person you. Again, talk to me instead of your ridiculous straw man.

Me: "Jesus chose 'hades' which means 'grave' instead of 'gehenna' which means fiery, blazing hell".
You: "It's symbolic."

Hades can refer to hell, also. You are so incredibly ignorant.

Matthew 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Notice that Jesus was contrasting heaven and hell there, so that's how we know he was talking about hell and not the grave here.

Me: "They you agree it's a symbolic parable that must be interpreted."
You: "NO, PHONEMAN, YOU FOOL, IT'S A LITERAL STORY TOLD FIGURATIVELY!"

Phoneman, you fool, it's a true story about real people (Lazarus, the rich man, Abraham and Moses) and places (Abraham's bosom and hell) that also contains figurative text. How can you not understand this simple concept? Can a true story not contain any figurative text? If not, then there are hundreds or thousands of more parables in scripture than what anyone previously thought.

Me: "Uh.....got it."

You: Childish person who believes a lot of nonsense that I can't take seriously.

Rich Man is symbolic.

Why would Jesus specify how many brothers a symbolic person has? What value would specifying that the rich man had five brothers add to a parable? That's ridiculous. That kind of detail is strong evidence that it's not a parable.

The fine fare is symbolic.
The gate is symbolic.
Lazarus is symbolic (using "Lazarus" doesn't make the story literal - it makes it prophetic. SEE VERSE 31).

Lazarus is not symbolic. That's ridiculous! Show me any other parable where a fictional person in the parable is given a name. I'll wait. Go now and find it. I think I might be waiting a long time.

Lazarus' sores are symbolic.
The dogs are symbolic.

I have no problem with a true story containing some symbolism. You act as if something containing symbolism means it's fictional. Do you think most of the book of Revelation is fictional because it contains a lot of symbolism?

Abraham is symbolic.

If you had any credibility before, you lost it here. Unbelievable. Abraham symbolic? LOL!!!!!!! Do you think Moses is symbolic, too? LOL!!!!! You can't be taken seriously.

The Rich Man's brothers are symbolic.

Nonsense. If that was the case there would be no reason to mention how many brothers he had. That kind of detail would add absolutely nothing to a parable.

Got it? Make one single thing literal and massive contradictions arise from doing so.

LOL. Making Abraham (don't forget that Moses is mentioned, too) literal creates contradictions? Really? Unreal. So stupid. Completely embarrassing nonsense. I feel sorry for you that you are so tied to the SDA church that you feel obligated to believe this ridiculous nonsense.

Since the Rich Man is symbolic of the Jews (as Lazarus is symbolic of the Gentiles) it could be said that the Rich Man's 5 brother are representative of:

• Jews like himself
• Pharisees
• Sadducees
• Essenes
• Fourth Philosophy

LOL. You're just making things up out of thin air. You clearly will do anything to try to make scripture say what you want it to say.

My interpretation is the only one that doesn't introduce colossal contradictions - that's how we SDAs roll.

LOL. You are a comedian.

So, tell me again how Moses and Elijah were talking to Jesus at His transfiguration? They were talking in their sleep? LOL!!!!! Thanks for the laughs. Soul sleep is truly one of the most ridiculous doctrines that any Christians believe in. It's up there with the nonsensical pre-trib rapture belief.

 

[Phoneman777]

This is called figurative language. Scripture is full of that. Jesus is illustrating what a divided Hades looked like before the resurrection. After that, Abraham's bosom was emptied. Sin and death had been defeated. There was definite existence of blessing and torment before Christ's first resurrection and before that great final physical resurrection of the bodies.

Only problem is that you don't have a single verse that definitively proves this, while I can show that the entire passage is parabolic, because if we make any portion of it literal, many contradictions arise.

This is not even a rebuttal. You are manipulating Scripture here to make it say what do you want to say. The fact was: the penitent chief was going straight into the presence of paradise. Where is paradise today? Heaven. Hello! You butcher this text to have no meaning.

Anybody can hurl accusations, but the worst kind are those without accompanying evidence. How about you show us how my post manipulates Scripture? Go on, show us:

...that punctuation was included/inspired in ancient texts.
...why we should ignore that "today" is modified by the verb it follows 4 to 1 times to the verb preceding.
...how a text that must fight to even approach it manages to cross the threshold of neutrality to "your proof".

He followed Christ's example rising into God's presence upon death. Do you believe Jesus entered Paradise or not? You probably question that too.

Good gravy, Jesus didn't enter anywhere Friday! He told Mary Sunday, "I have not yet ascended"!

You have turned off on a rabbit trail. He was talking about being with Jesus. Hello! That happened upon death.

So, what did Paul mean by "unclothed" when he said we groan "not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon"?

The arrogance of the unchurched doesn't hold a candle to the arrogance of "Christian scholars" who, when confronted with unanswerable arguments, somehow conclude ignoring them qualifies as defeating them.

You are twisting the wording of the text to say something it never said. You have to do this.

What else did he mean by "naked" and "unclothed" if it doesn't mean lying dead in the grave without a body awaiting the resurrection?

The reason the Immoral Soul crowd won't answer is because you know the only answer is my answer!

You have no answer for that have you? Nothing! This exposes your error.

Is English your first language?

I absolutely answered you, saying: the 24 Elders are either from among the "many" that arose from the graves when Jesus died, or - according to variant MSS readings - are leaders from unfallen worlds, but definitely not "disembodied souls" floating around in heaven - because disembodied souls don't exist.

This is before the second coming. You have nothing to refute this.

What verse are you referring to?

You have nothing of credibility to bring to the table - only nonsensical carnal reasoning. Your view is dead in the water.

I tried to educate you as to why texts in Revelation ain't written in consecutive order, but apparently you're education and/or intelligence is not at a level that can grasp it - turn your attention from eschatology to hermeneutics, then get back to me.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I absolutely answered you, saying: the 24 Elders are either from among the "many" that arose from the graves when Jesus died, or - according to variant MSS readings - are leaders from unfallen worlds, but definitely not "disembodied souls" floating around in heaven - because disembodied souls don't exist.

You are apparently claiming that the 24 elders have immortal bodies already? You are contradicting Paul by saying the 24 elders have immortal bodies in heaven. Only Jesus has an immortal body so far.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Paul indicated that the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality is Christ's first and then next in order "they that are Christ's at his coming". Also, Paul indicated that we all will be changed to have immortal bodies at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:50-54) and that hasn't happened yet. So, where do the 24 elders fit in there exactly? According to Paul's teachings it's not possible that anyone but Christ has an immortal body yet.

I tried to educate you as to why texts in Revelation ain't written in consecutive order, but apparently you're education and/or intelligence is not at a level that can grasp it - turn your attention from eschatology to hermeneutics, then get back to me.

LOL! Do you even know who you're talking to? He has talked often about the seven parallels or recapitulations in the book of Revelation that each cover the time period from the first to second coming and you are trying to educate him "as to why texts in Revelation ain't written in consecutive order?". Wow.

 

[Phoneman777]

Okay. What's your point?

Catholic Bible commentator Fallon says the fulfimment of the Man of Sin has to do with the future - just like you and many good catholics believe.

We figuratively sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus now. That is not talking about the future. What he said there relates to current salvation.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, I see. We can figuratively sit, but they can't figuratively live. That "Big Book of Subjective Hermeneutics by Spiritual Israelite" must get heavier and heavier with each new edition, eh?

You are mistaken by thinking Ephesians 2:4-6 is talking about things that will be

Good gravy, man, Jesus Himself said the saints will "sit down in the kingdom of God" which is future! Therefore, "made to sit down in heavenly places" is the figurative expression of a future reality, just as "God of the living" is a figurative expression of that future reality!

Don't be stupid. I believe in Biblical teachings. If a Catholic happens to agree, I couldn't care less. Truth is truth. Stop this dumb nonsense already.

What about if you agree with a whole lotta stuff catholics say? Because you absolutely do.

Exactly. Which is why I believe what the Bible teaches, but you are mistaken about some of what the Bible teaches. You have chosen to align yourself with a false church denomination. You put man (and woman - Ellen G. White) on a pedestal which is not wise.

Make no mistake, your Biblical Rationalationism is idolatrous - because it exalts human reasoning above the Word of God. If you truly believed what the Bible teaches, you'd let go of your twisted variation of Jesuit "future Man of Sin" nonsense and revisit the truth of Protestant Historicism.

I do not say that dead people have bodies, either. Talk to me instead of your straw man.

Enough of your squirming - do the wicked end up burning for eternity bodily or disembodily?

Do you have something against symbolism? The book of Revelation has lots of it. You must really hate that book.

No, but plenty against those who subjectively assign literalism or symbolism based on whatever lends credibility to their hermeneutical hijinks.

I don't say that the dead can go back and interact with the living, you goofy silly person you. Again, talk to me instead of your ridiculous straw man.

Sorry, but it's hard to keep up with your asinine "literal and symbolic" Luke 16 nonsense.

Hades can refer to hell, also. You are so incredibly ignorant.

Hades is NOT the "fiery, burning, blazing" gehenna, understand?

Sheol: grave
Hades: grave
Tartrus: abyss
Gehenna: fiery, burning, blazing

Notice that Jesus was contrasting heaven and hell there, so that's how we know he was talking about hell and not the grave here.

When Jesus comes to "destroy with the brightness of His (second) coming" and "the slain of the Lord at that day shall be from one end of the Earth even to the other end of the Earth" - will not the inhabitants of Capernaum be among those bound up in what will be on gigantic planetary grave?

Phoneman, you fool, it's a true story about real people (Lazarus, the rich man, Abraham and Moses) and places (Abraham's bosom and hell) that also contains figurative text. How can you not understand this simple concept? Can a true story not contain any figurative text? If not, then there are hundreds or thousands of more parables in scripture than what anyone previously thought.

Good gravy, man, I've already educated you that "the bosom of Abraham" where the Rich Man sees Lazarus is not geographical - it's physiological! You wanna make "the (physiological) bosom of Abraham literal? Fine - now explain how all the dead saints of all ages fit inside that bosom!

And "hell" is not burning yet! You claim to believe Peter, so believe him when he says in 2 Peter 2:9 KJV that the punishment of the wicked is future, not going on now!

You: Childish person who believes a lot of nonsense that I can't take seriously.

No, what's unbearable is the pseudo-scholarship of one who thinks he can make literalism and symbolism dance together on the head of a pin.

Why would Jesus specify how many brothers a symbolic person has? What value would specifying that the rich man had five brothers add to a parable? That's ridiculous. That kind of detail is strong evidence that it's not a parable.

Tell me, on what page of your "Big Book of Subjective Hermeneutics" can we find all these subjective rules for what does and doesn't constitute a parable?

The Rich Man represents the JEWS - he calls Abraham "father" and Abraham calls him "son". Maybe you should chew on that before worrying about 5 brothers.

Lazarus is not symbolic. That's ridiculous! Show me any other parable where a fictional person in the parable is given a name. I'll wait. Go now and find it. I think I might be waiting a long time.

Another gem from your Big Book, eh?

I have no problem with a true story containing some symbolism. You act as if something containing symbolism means it's fictional. Do you think most of the book of Revelation is fictional because it contains a lot of symbolism?


View attachment 48962

Is that you trying to determine what you're going to make literal and what will be symbolic?

If you had any credibility before, you lost it here. Unbelievable. Abraham symbolic? LOL!!!!!!! Do you think Moses is symbolic, too? LOL!!!!! You can't be taken seriously.

Abraham is there so we don't miss Jesus' point that the Rich Man represents Jews.

"And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard His parables, they perceived that He spoke of them" among which was the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

Nonsense. If that was the case there would be no reason to mention how many brothers he had. That kind of detail would add absolutely nothing to a parable.

Seriously, how did your publisher get that thing in your mailbox?

LOL. You're just making things up out of thin air. You clearly will do anything to try to make scripture say what you want it to say.

Where the Bible is silent, are we not free so speculate?

LOL. You are a comedian.

Yeah, but I only tell clean jokes now.

So, tell me again how Moses and Elijah were talking to Jesus at His transfiguration? They were talking in their sleep? LOL!!!!! Thanks for the laughs. Soul sleep is truly one of the most ridiculous doctrines that any Christians believe in. It's up there with the nonsensical pre-trib rapture belief.

Moses and Elijah exemplify the two types of saints at the resurrection - the sleeping and wake.

Elijah went up in a fiery chariot without suffering death.

Moses was resurrected and very much alive at the Mount - unless you think the dispute between the Lord and Satan over his body was for who would get to stuff and display it next to the fireplace, or who would get credit for donating it to science.

 

[Phoneman777]

Yes, every man a liar including you. One of your lies is claiming to be sinless since you were saved. Why do you take those verses so literally? We are saved by grace through faith and not by works, right (Eph 2:8-10)? Why do you think God's grace is no longer needed after being saved? Why do you think He suddenly requires us to be perfect after being saved? How do you live up to the pressure of thinking that you have to be sinless or else you will be condemned? You are so deceived. I feel sorry for you.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

This is John talking to his fellow believers and including himself in what he was saying there. While we should strive for holiness and righteousness, God knows we will fall short and is gracious, faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we confess them. Not only are we saved by grace through faith and not by works, but we maintain our salvation by grace through faith and not by works as well. But, you believe that one is only initially saved by grace through faith and then after that we have to maintain our salvation by our own works and righteousness. Scripture never teaches this.

Read Romans 7:14-25. Do you imagine yourself to be better than Paul? Paul struggled with sin after being saved because he pointed out how our flesh (sin nature) is always at war with our mind or spirit. He didn't want to sin, but sometimes the flesh wins the battle. So ,1 John 5:18 is talking about the fact that those who are born again do not sin willfully and is not saying those who are born again never sin at all.

You should change you name to "Spiritual Adolescent" - the insults you hurl at those with whom you disagree are all that's needed to tell us that you need to stay at least 500 feet away from any political or religious discussion until you become emotionally equipped to agreeably disagree.

 

[ReChoired]

I don't say that the dead can go back and interact with the living, ...

Hi.

Can I ask you some clarifying questions, so I can understand your position better, please? I do not meant to derail your present interaction with another, just would like to understand your thinking/position better.

 

[ReChoired]

Hades can refer to hell, also.

Here is the definition and word usage of "hell":

DEFINITIONS AND ETYMOLOGY (WORD ORIGINS) OF THE WORDS “HELL” AND “HELLING”:

ETYMOLOGY ONLINE:

[A.] “also Hell, Old English hel, helle, "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death," from Proto-Germanic *haljō "the underworld" (source also of Old Frisian helle, Old Saxon hellia, Dutch hel, Old Norse hel, German Hölle, Gothic halja "hell"). Literally "concealed place" (compare Old Norse hellir "cave, cavern"), from PIE root *kel- (1) "to cover, conceal, save.​

​

Old Norse Hel (from Proto-Germanic *halija "one who covers up or hides something" ... Used in the KJV for Old Testament Hebrew Sheol and New Testament Greek Hades, Gehenna. ...” - hell | Etymology of hell by etymonline​

[B.] "*kel- (1)​

​

Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to cover, conceal, save."​

​

It forms all or part of: Anselm; apocalypse; Brussels; caliology; Calypso; calyx; ceiling; cell; cellar; cellular; cellulite; cellulitis; cilia; clandestine; cojones; coleoptera; color; conceal; eucalyptus; hall; hell; helm (n.2) "a helmet;" helmet; hold (n.2) "space in a ship below the lower deck;" hole; hollow; holster; housing (n.2) "ornamental covering;" hull (n.1) "seed covering;" kil-; kleptomania; occult; rathskeller; supercilious; Valhalla; William.​

​

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit cala "hut, house, hall;" Greek kalia "hut, nest," kalyptein "to cover," koleon, koleos "sheath," kelyphos "shell, husk;" Latin cella "small room, store room, hut," celare "to hide, conceal," clam "secret," clepere "to steal, listen secretly to;" Old Irish cuile "cellar," celim "hide," Middle Irish cul "defense, shelter;" Gothic hulistr "covering," Old English heolstor "lurking-hole, cave, covering," Gothic huljan "to cover over," hulundi "hole," hilms "helmet," halja "hell," Old English hol "cave," holu "husk, pod;" Old Prussian au-klipts "hidden;" Old Church Slavonic poklopu "cover, wrapping."" - - hell | Etymology of hell by etymonline​

WEBSTER’S 1828 DICTIONARY ONLINE:

"... HELL, noun​

​

1. The place or state of punishment for the wicked after death. Matthew 10:28. Luke 12:5. ... 2. The place of the dead, or of souls after death; the lower regions, or the grave; called in Hebrew, sheol, and by the Greeks, hades. Psalms 16:10. Jonah 2:2. ..." - Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Hell​

WORD USAGE:

[A.] "Roofs were usually covered with helling stones or slates from Cornwall. Some came from St. Dominick and Menhenniot, but the origin of most is unstated. Some of the helling stones for Plympton grammar school came from Cann quarry which is north of Plym bridge, but these may have been of an inferior quality." - Devon and Cornwall Record Society, Volumes 12-14 (1967), page xiv. - Devon and Cornwall Record Society​

​

[B.] "The word "hell" replaced the Hebrew word "Sheol" and the Greek word "Hai'des". The Hebrew word "Sheol" is the common grave of mankind, not a fiery place of torture. The archaic English word "hell" was used as a replacement for "Sheol" and at the time, the word meant "to put under the ground" as in "helling potatoes" (Colliers Encyclopedia 1986 Volume 12, page 28) (Vine's Expository Dictionary Old and New Testament Words, 1981 Volume 2, page 187)." - God is Great: Bible Rebuttal to Christopher Hitchens by Peter James, page 63 - God Is Great​

​

[C.] "... The English word "hell" was a word that the translators picked to express an idea or condition of the Hebrew word "sheol" or Greek words "hades", "gehenna", or "tartaroo", and sometimes instead of using the word "hell", they would use the word "grave" or "pit". One of the most interesting aspects of the word "hell"is that in the old English usage, it also meant "to conceal" or "to hide" or "to cover". Old English literature sometimes mentions the "helling of onions" or potatoes, and even tells of the "helling of a house", by covering it with thatch or wooden shingles." - Satan's Secret: Exposing the Master of Deception and the Father of Lies by D. A. Teunis, page 181 - Satan's Secret​

​

[D.] “That place is a real ‘hell-hole’, as it is without light, or joy, being dark and hidden away.”​

​

[E.] “Cover your head! Put on that Hel-met (helmet, literally a ‘hell met’, or head covering’).​

​

For more see - 13 Bible Studies, Prophecy, History, Theology, Legacy by brother Aaron Earnest : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Catholic Bible commentator Fallon says the fulfimment of the Man of Sin has to do with the future - just like you and many good catholics believe.

The foolish nonsense continues. They believe it is an individual Antichrist and I do not. So, my belief has nothing to do with theirs. Nice failed try yet again.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, I see. We can figuratively sit, but they can't figuratively live. That "Big Book of Subjective Hermeneutics by Spiritual Israelite" must get heavier and heavier with each new edition, eh?

Ahhhhhh, I see. You are not able to differentiate between literal and figurative text. Something you have made clear repeatedly in this discussion.

Good gravy, man, Jesus Himself said the saints will "sit down in the kingdom of God" which is future! Therefore, "made to sit down in heavenly places" is the figurative expression of a future reality, just as "God of the living" is a figurative expression of that future reality!

You are not accepting that Paul talked about that in the present tense. You are constantly twisting and turning scripture to make it say what you want it to say.

God is not the God of the dead. Did you forget that part? That means He is currently not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in your false doctrine. Keep going with your nonsense, though! You just reveal more and more how biased you are and how much you purposely change scripture to make it fit your doctrine.

What about if you agree with a whole lotta stuff catholics say? Because you absolutely do.

Such as? You try to say I agree with them about the man of sin and I don't. Acting as if believing 2 Thess 2:3 is talking about a future falling away from the faith and future revealing of the man of sin (sinful mankind who has fallen away from God) is equivalent to the belief of a future individual sitting in some imaginary future physical temple while claiming to be God is ludicrous! I don't agree with them about that any more than you do, you silly goose! What other things do you think I agree with them about that I don't?

Make no mistake, your Biblical Rationalationism is idolatrous - because it exalts human reasoning above the Word of God. If you truly believed what the Bible teaches, you'd let go of your twisted variation of Jesuit "future Man of Sin" nonsense and revisit the truth of Protestant Historicism.

LOL. Your drama queen histrionics mean nothing to me. My understanding of the man of sin does not agree with the Jesuit understanding of the man of sin, so you are just telling a lie by trying to equate my view with theirs. It's not even close.

Enough of your squirming - do the wicked end up burning for eternity bodily or disembodily?

Squirming? LOL!!!!!! Anyone reading this discussion can see that I'm not squirming at all in response to your weak arguments. Scripture says they will be resurrected (John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:2, Acts 24:15). It's not literal fire. They will be separated from the Lord's presence for eternity and will feel the regret of not having repented when they had the chance. The fact that they will be tormented for eternity is made clear here:

Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

No, but plenty against those who subjectively assign literalism or symbolism based on whatever lends credibility to their hermeneutical hijinks.

That's exactly what you do, hypocrite.

Sorry, but it's hard to keep up with your asinine "literal and symbolic" Luke 16 nonsense.

It is utterly foolish to try to call a passage containing references to real people and places, with specific details about the number of brothers the rich man had, a fictional parable the way you do. Your interpretation of Luke 16:19-31 is a huge joke. It's utterly ridiculous.

Hades is NOT the "fiery, burning, blazing" gehenna, understand?

Sheol: grave
Hades: grave
Tartrus: abyss
Gehenna: fiery, burning, blazing

I show you a verse where it is contrasted with heaven and what do you do? Ignore it. You can't be taken seriously. You cherry pick the scriptures that you think fit your doctrine and you ignore the rest and you change many of those scriptures to fit your doctrine. You are completely dishonest with those scriptures.

When Jesus comes to "destroy with the brightness of His (second) coming" and "the slain of the Lord at that day shall be from one end of the Earth even to the other end of the Earth" - will not the inhabitants of Capernaum be among those bound up in what will be on gigantic planetary grave?

What in the world are you talking about? Jesus was talking to the people of Capernaum of His day and telling them that they were going to end up in hell/hades instead of heaven as they thought. You are not making any sense. Please ask God for wisdom so that you stop butchering all these verses (James 1:5-7).

Good gravy, man,

LOL! Bad gravy, dude....

I've already educated you

LOL!

that "the bosom of Abraham" where the Rich Man sees Lazarus is not geographical - it's physiological!

Nope. That's like saying the third heaven/paradise where Jesus is is only "physiological". He brought the souls in Abraham's bosom to the third heaven/paradise long ago.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You wanna make "the (physiological) bosom of Abraham literal? Fine - now explain how all the dead saints of all ages fit inside that bosom!

I'm not saying it's his literal bosom you goofy person. It's a figurative expression for an actual place where the souls of believers were at that time. Now, they are in the third heaven/paradise with Jesus. Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8) and I trust Paul to know what he was talking about.

And "hell" is not burning yet! You claim to believe Peter, so believe him when he says in 2 Peter 2:9 KJV that the punishment of the wicked is future, not going on now!

They are separated from the Lord now in hell, but are awaiting judgment (Hebrews 9:27) at which point they will have to give an account of themselves (Romans 14:10-12, Matthew 25:31-46) and then they will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity (Matt 25:41, Rev 20:15). Is there anything you don't understand about this?

No, what's unbearable is the pseudo-scholarship of one who thinks he can make literalism and symbolism dance together on the head of a pin.

LOL. Is there not a mix of literal and symbolic text in the book of Revelation? What is your deal with not allowing for literal and symbolic text to be side by side? LOL. Good gravy, man.

Tell me, on what page of your "Big Book of Subjective Hermeneutics" can we find all these subjective rules for what does and doesn't constitute a parable?

You have no rules for what makes a parable so I guess the Bible is just one big parable in your mind. Jesus's parables were fictional made up stories He used to illustrated truth in reality. That's not what we see in Luke 16:19-31 which is an account of real people in real places with the kind of detail that is never found in a parable such as the rich man having five brothers. Why you can't understand something as simple as this can only be explained by your brainwashed, biased mind.

The Rich Man represents the JEWS - he calls Abraham "father" and Abraham calls him "son". Maybe you should chew on that before worrying about 5 brothers.

Another gem from your Big Book, eh?

LOL. Total nonsense. Are you forgetting that Jesus usually explained His parables after He told them? Where does He give any indication of something like this in Luke 16:19-31? Nowhere. You are constantly trying to make scripture say what you want it to say, which is shameful.

Abraham is there so we don't miss Jesus' point that the Rich Man represents Jews.

LOL. You have quite an active imagination. The Jews with five brothers? LOL. Get out of here with this nonsense.

"And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard His parables, they perceived that He spoke of them" among which was the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

Holy goodness. This is truly unbelievable. Now you are really twisting scripture. You should repent of this wicked deception! That was only said in relation to the parables He told in Matthew 21, not anything He said in Luke 16! We're talking about Luke 16:19-31 here, not Matthew 21. This really shows how you truly are willing to change any scripture to make it say what you want it to say. Plus, Luke 16:19-31 isn't even a parable, anyway.

Moses and Elijah exemplify the two types of saints at the resurrection - the sleeping and wake.

LOL. What? You make up so much nonsense in your imagination. Do you think you should actually be taken seriously with all this nonsense you put out there? It's impossible to take this stuff seriously.

Elijah went up in a fiery chariot without suffering death.

Do you think he already has an immortal body? That would contradict 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 which says that Jesus Himself was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality and next in order are those who are His at His second coming. You need to rethink this.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Your doctrine has Christ as being the second (or third, apparently, since you foolishly think Moses was resurrected unto bodily immortality, too) to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality, thereby contradicting scripture with your doctrine yet again.

Moses was resurrected and very much alive at the Mount - unless you think the dispute between the Lord and Satan over his body was for who would get to stuff and display it next to the fireplace, or who would get credit for donating it to science.

LOL! Again you are making up nonsense! Nowhere does it say that Moses was resurrected! Your doctrine is entirely based on speculation and changing scripture to make it say what you want it to say. And, like I said above regarding Elijah, it would contradict scripture if Moses already had an immortal body since scripture teaches that Jesus was the first to have an immortal body. You don't take all of scripture into account regarding these things and that's why your doctrine contradicts scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You should change you name to "Spiritual Adolescent" - the insults you hurl at those with whom you disagree are all that's needed to tell us that you need to stay at least 500 feet away from any political or religious discussion until you become emotionally equipped to agreeably disagree.

Do you not read your own posts with your many insults? What a hypocrite you are. I'm just talking your language, buddy. I guess you can dish it out, but can't take it? Maybe you should try toning things down yourself then? Ever think about that? Do you imagine that you are trying to agreeably disagree with me with the kind of comments you're making to me? Read your own posts and see. Your lack of self awareness is incredible. I suppose you think that referring to "Spiritual Israelite's Big Book of Subjective Hermeneutics" is not meant to be an insult? Look in the mirror.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The words of God are not a demonic lie.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not;

The word of God is not, but your fanciful reinterpretations --- are far from truth.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

The word of God is not, but your fanciful reinterpretations --- are far from truth.

This is not a reinterpretation…

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not;

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

The word of God is not, but your fanciful reinterpretations --- are far from truth.

This is not a reinterpretation…

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not;